Does prog have to be complex to be prog?

Awesoreno wrote: Big Sky wrote: Atavachron wrote: ^ True, and as would follow, Tigran Hamasyan is a progressive artist who appears on PA and who emphasizes complex rhythms, just as Genesis are progressive artists who appear on PA who emphasize(d) complex rhythms.    Himasyan is listed on PA, but he is a Jazz, Jazz Fusion artist, not a Progressive Rock artist. Armenian Folk influences can particularly be found in his compositions. Progressive Rock/Metal does to a lesser extent, influence his music. The Red Hail album is the most obvious of those progressive rock influences. My opinion is that just because the music by an artist or band is complex and virtuosic does not make it progressive rock. Conversely, because it's not complex and virtuosic doesn't mean it can't be progressive rock. For example, jazz and jazz fusion is seen as complex. But, look at Miles Davis' album Jack Johnson. Right Off, the track off the first side has musicians improvising over a Bb chord for about 20 minutes before changing to an E chord. Yesternow on the second side has the musicians playing over a Bb ostinato before changing to C minor. From a composition point of view, it's not that complex. The Jack Johnson album was basically a jam session. The improvisations and playing are brilliant, you have Miles, Herbie Hancock, Billy Cobham, John McLaughlin, Michael Henderson and Steve Grossman playing after all, but it's not Giant Steps. I guess it could be argued that Jack Johnson album was a Rock and Funk album played by jazz musicians. Great point. The US school of fusion was often about just hangin on a few chords and seeing where things go. A direct line of evolution from the post/hard bop movement. They said "what about instead of these traditional harmonic cadences from Great American Songbook standards, we try some of THESE chords?" And the Miles sect boiled that down even further. Compare that to bebop, which essentially injected chromaticism and other tensions into the Blues and/or tradition Western chord progressions (again, from American Songbook) and then soloists would just absolutely shred over it. Harmonically, it's less complex and difficult to write or understand, but required more dexterity and virtuosity in the moment to improvise over. So is Bebop more prog? Or is Post-Bop more prog for exploring new kinds of harmonies and progressions? Or is US fusion more prog for experimenting with space? Or is it just the UK fusion that gets to be considered prog because it was mostly rock musicians who just got decent at the contemporary jazz of their day (but didn't have much Bebop experience) and made "proggy" tracks with jazz(y) solos? Food for thought. (And by "more prog" I really mean "more similar to Prog Rock," before anyone says "yeah but we're not talking about jaaaaaaaazz")

Don't forget about Cool Jazz and Modal Jazz. Bebop from an arrangement point of view was rather simple. A head that provided the framework for the soloist and a chart for the chord changes. The harmony in Bebop is usually complex with the use of extended chords and altered chords. The melodic line is typically complex too. With the focus on the soloist and tempos played at breakneck speeds, as a musician, you have to have some serious chops for Bebop.

Cool Jazz arrangements are more sophisticated than Bebop arrangements. The melodies and harmony are usually not as complex in Cool Jazz as with Bebop, which is why it was more accessible to the public and why it was far more popular than Bebop. Cool Jazz's use of classical structures, incorporating counterpoint in its arrangements for example, was not something seen in Bebop. Cool Jazz allowed space and was played at typically a slower tempo than Bebop. Cool Jazz, more so than other jazz forms made greater use of odd time signatures. Think Dave Brubeck.

Modal Jazz shared common characteristics to Cool Jazz. Use of space and played at generally slower tempos than Bebop, for example. As the name implies, the focus, however, is on scales rather than chord changes in determining what the musician played. It allowed more artistic freedom for the soloist. Fewer chord changes, less reliance on functional harmony and greater use of pedal points. Miles Davis' Kind of Blue would be an example of modal jazz.

Jazz Fusion, besides the obvious use of Rock and Funk music in its sound, its jazz origins in my opinion are more tied to Modal Jazz and to a lesser extent Cool Jazz.

So what forms of jazz did Prog draw? I think Jazz Fusion. Both Prog and Fusion borrowed from Rock music. Consider the fact that various bands like Yes, ELP, Mahavisnu Orchestra, RTF, etc toured together. Steve Howe has mentioned how the Mahavisnu Orchestra influenced the intro to CTTE. Fusion influences are all over Relayer. RTF and Mahavisnu Orchestra have their Proggy moments.

Edited by Big Sky - January 20 2024 at 22:01

^ Trespass was young prog (symph), but still more complex than much that same year (like Emerson,Lake &Palmer).   It was legit, just underdeveloped.   



Edited by Atavachron - January 20 2024 at 23:24

Atavachron wrote: ^ Trespass was young prog (symph), but still more complex than much that same year (like Emerson,Lake &Palmer).   It was legit, just underdeveloped.

Atavachron wrote: ^ Trespass was young prog (symph), but still more complex than much that same year (like Emerson,Lake &Palmer).   It was legit, just underdeveloped.

^That is about where I am at now. I will let other people label something is progressive or not. I will just decide whether I like it or not.

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: Atavachron wrote: ^ Trespass was young prog (symph), but still more complex than much that same year (like Emerson,Lake &Palmer).   It was legit, just underdeveloped By the same token the only thing that's really complex on ITCOTCK is 21st century schizoid man.

Well yeah that's kinda right.   Why, does that bother you ?

^ It's worse: There is "prog" as a style and "progressive" as a general quality of the music. Both are impossible to define, let alone trying to put them in any meaningful relation:

Edited by MikeEnRegalia - January 21 2024 at 14:11

Atavachron wrote: AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: Atavachron wrote: ^ Trespass was young prog (symph), but still more complex than much that same year (like Emerson,Lake &Palmer).   It was legit, just underdeveloped By the same token the only thing that's really complex on ITCOTCK is 21st century schizoid man.  Well yeah that's kinda right.   Why, does that bother you ?

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ It's worse: There is "prog" as a style and "progressive" as a general quality of the music. Both are impossible to define, let alone trying to put them in any meaningful relation: "Progressive": There's really many ways to be that as a musician. Doesn't really work to boil it down to song structures or time signatures, that's way too simplistic. "Prog": Take ITCOTCK, SEBTP and CTTE as three iconic releases of Prog Rock. Good luck defining the genre in terms of style, it's all over the place.  This is why on AwesomeProg, after a lot of feedback over the years, I've simplified the disctinction down to three simple categories: - Non-Prog - Prog-Adjacent - Prog What those mean and where the boundaries are vary greatly from person to person, and maybe this is the best we can do

Edited by AFlowerKingCrimson - January 21 2024 at 15:14